A federal judge in Utah Friday struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

“The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby. “Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.”

“Applying the law as it is required to do, the court holds that Utah’s prohibition on same- sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law,” the judge wrote. “The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.” Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=28099570#JEOfBdYmOobFv7r6.99

“A federal district court judge in Utah just issued a decision striking down Utah’s marriage ban on the grounds that it violates the fundamental right to marry and lacks even a rational basis. This is the first decision since Perry–and the first after Windsor–striking down a marriage ban under the federal constitution. The judge did not stay his decision, so same-sex couples in Utah are applying for marriage licenses now.”

Judge Shelby, in his ruling, agreed with Justice Scalia that the Supreme Court’s federal ruling on DOMA would “inevitabl[y]” be applied to state laws banning same-sex marriage, and declared that he had no choice but to strike down Utah’s law.

“Justice Scalia,” Shelby wrote, “recommended how this court should interpret the [DOMA] decision when presented with the question that is now before it.”

Throughout his ruling, he used Scalia’s dissenting words to make his case. “As Justice Scalia has noted,” he wrote, “‘preserving the institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.” Shelby then argued that while “‘[p]rivate biases may be outside the reach of the law…the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect’ at the expense of a disfavored group’s constitutional rights.”